Before starting off this motion of no-confidence, I have a few words I'd like to say... Since I first met Clyde during a time when I was still an anonymous user here at Nukapedia, Clyde had been an active presence and still has a great work-ethic. And when The Vault split off from Wikia, Clyde took the mantel when we were largely leaderless, and helped us get back on our feet. Why am I saying this? Because even after his inactivity and the other concerns listed below, I still, personally, have a lot of faith in Clyde's abilities here at Nukapedia. However, I am still adamant that because of the reasons we're about to get into, that Clyde should, at least for now, have his Special Rights reverted to a lower position. Continuing onwards...
Before starting, I want to reiterate that this is a motion of no-confidence vote.
Since the beginning of last year, I have been hearing many of us in our community noticing Clyde's extended absence, and I have been taking these comments to heart along with my own thoughts gathered as time has passed. As a Bureaucrat, Clyde is in a unique position catered by Nukapedia, making him a de-facto leader with rights and sway greater than most other users and Special Rights holders. As well as the power Nukapedia has given Clyde, Wikia has also bestowed Clyde with Check User rights, which are only handed out to three Bureaucrats tops on any given wiki. Over the past two years, however, Clyde's activity has slipped greatly, to the point now where he rarely ever uses any of his rights, and is no longer able to fulfill his duties properly as one of our de-facto leaders. Now, while inactivity does play a large part in why I have instigated this motion of no-confidence, there are other issues, as well, that I'd like openly critique before moving on to the other statements, and then, the community vote:
-It is commonplace around the wiki for debates and arguments to arise, and a lot of times, these discussions tend to get heated. Many of us are able to resolve our differences, and some of us even take some time off to cool down. But what concerns me in Clyde's case is that he has threatened to leave this wiki multiple times after arguments with other editors (not just an editor).
- Working off of this concern, there are times when Clyde has taken his frustrations out on the wiki after an argument, with an example seen through this edit.
- And my last concern on this topic is that Clyde has had a tendency to take matters way too personally. Every counter-argument seems to set him off, and it ends up disrupting the topics he's a part of. [1]There was even a case where, after having an argument with an anonymous user and being proven wrong, harassed said user to make an account. [2] [3] And it doesn't just stop there: sometimes after an argument, Clyde then goes off into chat, where he has been known to attack the person or people he was arguing with [4]. Everyone vents in chat, but as a Bureaucrat, Clyde should hold himself to a higher standard.
-As a Bureaucrat, the community relies on Clyde to fulfill a leadership position, and this comes with the responsibility of regularly checking through forums and votes - especially votes that are deemed important, and are referred to him through his talk-page. Unfortunately, over the past year, Clyde's attendance on these forums has grown increasingly distant, until now, where we almost never hear a peep from him on forums and votes.
- This, along with the fact that Clyde hasn't used his rights to regularly patrol edits, moderate the chat, or even use his tools to block vandals and undesirables, shows that he hasn't had a need for the Bureaucratic tools, nor has he been willing to fulfill his Bureaucratic expectations.
- For clarification, Clyde's patrol-log is nearly empty, he has only banned one user in the past 5-6 months, is rarely ever in chat or able to appoint temporary Chat Moderators, has not played a public part in most forums and votes this year, and has only made 696 article edits since the 1st of January, 2012, with most of those edits being minor (less than 50-100 bytes).
I do understand that Clyde has been having real-world issues, and the time that he has to devote towards Wikia has become sparce due to those issues. I can definitely sympathize with that, but at the same time, it also opens up questions into how well Clyde can serve our wiki as a Bureaucrat when he doesn't have the time to remain an active, diligent presence, and has shown that he is unable or incapable of performing his Bureaucratic duties on a consistent basis. I can't speak for everyone else, but I, personally, still have faith in the abilities of Clyde's that I saw from before and right after the split, and I'm hoping that one day he will be able to return with that work-ethic again - which is why I am only wanting him to bumped down to an Administrator position for now. It is for the reasons above, however, that I feel the need to put forth a motion of no confidence. 
Some Assembly Required! 02:16, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
To the community:
Allow me to begin by saying that I've always found Clyde to be agreeable, friendly, and reasonable. I even remember that odd day in a chat debate when he helped me to defend the position I took against the US' granting of amnesty to Japanese Unit 731 scientists in exchange for their biological weapons data. Being one of our most senior members on the wiki, Clyde has certainly served the wiki with integrity for the last few years, both as an administrator as well as bureaucrat.
However, in recent times I cannot help but see Clyde becoming less active in community affairs as well as editing. Now, I realise the very legitimate reasons for this reduction in activity, the foremost of which seems to be a demanding work schedule. Now the last game was released over three years ago, and many other members of the administration have become relatively inactive due to real-life obligations and other matters that require their attention. After all, we are a fully voluntary force, and how active we are here is based on how much free time we have in real life. Also, let it be known that my support of this motion is based on the idea that Clyde would retain his administrator rights, but not the bureaucrat position.
Although in name the bureaucrat position is not meant to be higher than the administrator position, it is clear that they are held in higher regard and as leaders of the community. This is only natural due to them having a higher level of user rights in the first place. As such, a bureaucrat must be a leader of the community at large. In my opinion, being active is an intrinsic component of such leadership, which would indicate a consistent participation in community discussions, administrative affairs, as well as some main namespace editing. If a bureaucrat cannot meet these expectations, I believe it would be best suited for all if they step down. After all, bureaucrats should be held to an even higher standard than administrators since their position is held in higher regard.
It is for these reasons that I support this motion.
To Clyde:
Clyde, I don't know too much of what you think about me, but I can say with certainty that I've always enjoyed your presence on the wiki. I do hope that you can understand the rationale behind my support of this motion. I am not supporting a personal vendetta to depose the king, Clyde, but a bona fide motion to remove the obligations of being a bureaucrat from you. Many times I have heard of your demanding work schedule, and given the growing amount of work I'm facing now, I can only sympathise with you in this matter. And since it seems you are unable to attend to the matters of the wiki with the level of activity a bureaucrat should, I feel it would be best for you to join the admin team, at least for now.
I also realise you've said many times that you do check up on the wiki only to find everything in order. But there have been important discussions from which you've been absent and talk page messages that have not been addressed. To me, a leadership position such as that of a bureaucrat should expect more than just checking in once in awhile. It is clear that Jspoelstra and The Gunny have more time to spend on the wiki, which I understand is due to the different circumstances surrounding each person's real life.
I would also like to ensure you that if you do choose to run for bureaucrat again upon a return to active editing and participation in community discussions and administrative affairs, I would most certainly give you my support. I understand that it is a busy time in life for you and perhaps to be eased of the bureaucratic obligations would benefit yourself as well.
When the community is presented with a special-rights holder who has demonstrated consistently that they no longer need such rights, the community is therefore obligated to demand that the user’s special abilities be removed. In this case, I request that all special rights be removed from Kingclyde for reasons discussed below.
I do not know much about Kingclyde, but from what I have been told, he is an invaluable member of our community and someone who, in the past, has dedicated notable time and energy to bettering Nukapedia’s content and community. Unfortunately, now this vigor is not present; and Kingclyde has become notably less active and as such no longer demonstrates a need to hold special rights.
An argument I’ve heard from Kingclyde when the forum dealing with review for special rights holders was being discussed was that people have personal lives that do not always allow them to edit as frequently as others. The exact quote is:
“The simple fact is that some of the admin staff do not work internet jobs or go to school exclusively and have access to the internet and thus have access to spend most of their time here. Some people have real life jobs and real life stuff. When Fallout 4 comes out my edit count will pickup again for example.”
Let it be known that any argument centered on the principle that people encounter factors in their daily lives that do not allow frequent activity here is an argument in support of removing Kingclyde’s rights.
Unfortunately, this is unfair; some people do not have the same freedom and opportunity to edit here that others do. These people are simply less qualified to then hold special powers at this wiki. We all have personal lives; this shouldn’t be used a justification for the infrequency seen from Kingclyde. He holds the top position here at Nukapedia, and if his personal life can’t accommodate as much time as most of our other special-rights holders, I see little reason for him to keep this ability; after all, we are not obligated to reward those of us who have done good work in the past with special rights. Instead, we give special rights on an as-needed basis, and what we do not need is another user who does hold a constant presence at this wiki. Kingclyde seems to have shown that he is unfortunately incapable or unwilling to maintain a presence here necessary from any user who rightfully holds special rights.
And now to Kingclyde personally:
I must say that I’ve missed many of your major contributions to this wiki in my time here, and I haven’t had many opportunities to have much contact with you. I know that because of this, my words may add extra frustration; I know the feeling when users who seem to barely know you critique what you’ve worked hard to do for Nukapedia. Please know that I’m making no attempt here to disqualify or undermine any of the improvements, achievements, and efforts you have made here; and if the position of Bureaucrat was one that celebrated the accomplishments and labors of a well-respected and significant member of the community, anyone who would try to take that away from you would look a fool. Our issue here is that the Bureaucrat position is something much different.
From the bare-minimum standpoint, a Bureaucrat is a user who has been entrusted by the community to ensure its well-being through the all following tools: 1. the ability to ban users from chat 2. the ability to mark edits as patrolled 3. the ability to roll back edits 4. the ability to delete pages 5. the ability to protect pages 6. the ability to ban users 7. access to technical aspects of the wiki unavailable to users without sysop abilities 8. the ability to regulate special rights to users. More than this, however, the position means that the person who holds it must not only act as a representative of the community to the community itself but also as a representative of the community to other wikis, wiki staff, and other persons not directly affiliated with using this wiki. Additionally, both administrators and bureaucrats have the responsibility to mediate user or edit conflicts; and they must be available to do so.
In your time, you were a prime candidate to be trusted with these powers and implied responsibilities, but, unfortunately, your sporadic presence here this past year indicates that you are at this point unfit to hold special rights. Even dating back longer than that, you seem to make many edits for a few days, and then you disappear; the most basic prerequisite for anyone intending to hold special rights on this wiki is to be here to use them, and you are not; during user-rights requests, for example, your name is not even mentioned when it comes time for bureaucratic deliberations; why should you – unlike the others who hold the Bureaucratic position—be entitled to a free pass while they do the work required of them?
While I do see that you look to revolve problems at heart—like when I was having trouble with SaintPain—during my early time here, you were quick to assert that you were correct, and lost patience very quickly. I understand that you just wanted an answer from me, but you seemed to have one already yourself. While this is in no way the prime reason why I assert that your rights be removed, mediation is the responsibility of the bureaucrat and the admin, and you must be trusted to try to make the right call when needed.
You also rally behind the “People have lives, so they can’t be here” argument, but I have already said; this arguments severs only to harm your cause should you be determined to hold on to your rights. Anything I would want you to read would be in my earlier discussion about this topic.
Please note that this is not an attempt to permanently shut you out from the community. It is my personal hope that there comes a day when you are given special rights once again. But, I feel you have overlooked the community in a time when it is crucial to remain a constant presence here. Anyone can return when there’s a new game; that, of course, is an obvious reason to. But to choose to be here when we don’t have as much content to work with is most admirable, and I am only disappointed to see that someone who I hear was so crucial to this wiki in its early days has chosen to disregard it today.
I would be happy to hear that you plan to return to active editing in the future, but you have overlooked your responsibilities for a lengthy time. This sets a dangerous precedent should we allow you to keep your rights while we still require months of active editing for others to qualify for such abilities.
Nukapedia is seeing I time without any new information from a game, and with the seemingly little attraction there is to a wiki based on a world that hasn’t seen any new major content in years, I am not surprised that even users with special rights are faltering. The truth, however, is that there are activities to participate in at this wiki. From projects to fixing basic mistakes, the call for participation in this wiki is still here; community features as well invite input from all users. There are people here who edit almost every day and put monumental effort to ensure that this wiki continues its strive to be a complete encyclopedia for all Fallout-related information, and for thriving users like them – for a booming community like Nukapedia- to be represented by someone so preoccupied at this time is beyond problematic.
In time, I hope to see Kingclyde return to become a more active member of the community. But this is not something that will happen overnight. There is no reason for someone so now absent to hold any special rights, but should Kingclyde demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that he intends to once again become a powerful force in the community, I have no doubts that he can be a Bureaucrat again.
This is my official "defense" statement to this "vote of no confidence" which is, in my opinion a waste of time. I will give you my reasons for why I feel this is not worth pursuing and the I will make my defensive counterpoints to posters concerns.
I have never during my time when we were the Vault and now Nukapedia have I abused my administrative powers. I've never "banned people for fun" as some people have in the past, in fact I came down hard on that. I feel that something such as this "vote of no confidence" which is very similar to a "reconfirmation vote" should only be called when someone abuses their powers, not when a person feels that they are inactive and should be removed. If I did stay inactive resign to admin, would I expect one of these at a later point or is this just to remove me only as a bureaucrat?
I know this is ancient history, but it is indeed a valid point non the less. As Leon has stated "This wiki is not about you, and your past accomplishments should not and will not supersede present accomplishments." Nevertheless I still feel that it is worth mentioning.
As I noticed this happening, I realized I do need to be more visible when I am on here. I am active but not visible. Thus I do not appear active.
Now for the counter points.
- Working off of this concern, there are times when Clyde has taken his frustrations out on the wiki after an argument, with an example seen through this edit. - That's is one time and I regret it. Enough said.
- And my last concern on this topic is that Clyde has had a tendency to take matters way too personally. - The example in number one is something everyone runs across in their time on this wiki. Leon himself argues with people in the same way. He is an admin and as such this shows a bad example as well. Examples #2 and 3 are taken out of context by Leon as at the time we thought the user was a random anon who was vandalizing. Chad was also involved during this issue and can vouch for this. I didn't "harass him" into creating an account, we recommended that he create one so we could continuously contact him and communicate with him. As for example #4, oddly enough the chatlog only deals with people talking about and open argument on a forum between Leon and myself. Again it was taken out of context. Others asked about the situation and I answered them. I did not go in and as Leon puts it, "Clyde then goes off into chat, where he has been known to attack the person or people he was arguing with".
- For clarification, Clyde's patrol-log is empty, he has only banned one user in the past 5-6 months, is rarely ever in chat or able to appoint temporary Chat Moderators, has not played a public part in most forums and votes this year, and has only made 696 article edits since the 1st of January, 2012, with most of those edits being minor (less than 50-100 bytes). - Well, when it comes to the blocks, I actually blocked 2 people and fixed a permblock on one person whom Leon determined on his own wasn't needed anymore. But I digress. As for the patrol log, for someone who "I have never lied on this wiki before" Leon, I reviewed my patrol log and as I told you it was not empty. See link[5]. Other items such as the deletion log [6],protection log [7], user-rights changes logs [8]. Those also show my admin tool usage history.
- I do understand that Clyde has been having real-world issues, and the time that he has to devote towards Wikia has become sparce due to those issues. - As for this, yes I did have real world issues that I really didn't want to bring up here but this seems to but at the end of 2012 I had a small stroke. This caused some issues which have since resolved themselves and have allowed me to continue with work and everything. That is part of my inactivity for the first 3 months of 2013. I not asking for pity I'm just putting it out there.
I understand your concerns and believe most o f them were addressed under Leon's Concerns.
I understand your concerns and believe most o f them were addressed under Leon's Concerns.
In closing, I understand that my lack of visibility has harmed my position. As you guys and gals see it is is inactivity as I do not enter chat etc. But this has given me pause to reconsider the various points in my position in the wiki. I do indeed need to be more involve and I will be. In my honest opinion I stick to my guns that something like this should only be called up when someone openly abuses their powers. Thanks again for Reading this.--Kingclyde (talk) 03:23, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Vote pt.1
| ||||
Yes
See statement 69.l25 (talk)
I have already made my statement above. Some Assembly Required! 18:14, January 20, 2014 (UTC)- The Bureaucrat position is a held to a higher standard here on our wiki. Clyde has largely been inactive and no longer uses his special rights as a bureaucrat, which is why I support his demotion to the administrative level. --MountHail (talk) 01:34, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I am called to care for my fellow man for whom Christ also died. I care about Clyde. If moved to the admin position, the burdens of having to check in constantly amidst his busy schedule will be alleviated for two reasons: One, because the admin position holds fewer duties and obligations; and two, because empirically there is less of an activity expectation for admins. However, if Clyde is able to manage his time to make himself more visible here, then I am equally satisfied. --Skire (talk) 13:16, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
No
- I'm strongly disappointed to see a vote of "no confidence" aimed at someone who didn't do anything wrong. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)
- I've known Clyde since the beginning of 2010, and I can't even believe we're even discussing this. The "take things too personally" thing only points out at least three incredibly minor incidents. Regardless, which one of us hasn't committed any dumbass mistakes before? I'd like those of you who have not to make yourselves known. We're in-between games, as long as he's around for FO4, I have no problem with Clyde's inactivity; I really do think some people here take this site way too seriously, to be honest. There's nothing he's missing. There's no projects going at all, except some which have hardly even took off yet and won't for a while, and a few that are nearly taken care of. OfficialLolGuy Talk Blog 18:12, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I still have confidence in Clyde, and wish to have him around as a bureaucrat. That said, I hope he becomes a bit more active because he's such a swell dude :) He's a valuable, seasoned asset to this Wiki. I find this debacle a bit disappointing, as this is how someone like Clyde is treated. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 18:15, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- To me this is sad. I have much confidence in Clyde and wish to see him retain his rights (unlike other users...) He has done so much and it seems to be overlooked. I am sticking to my guns on this and saying I want Clyde to keep his rights. "Some say this user is a Patroller..." 18:34, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I see no point in this. After reading the admin policies and KC's contributions page I don't even feel he qualifies to be put under Inactive Admins/BCs. And the patroller log point doesn't seem like much to me because only a small handful out of 10 pages were manually marked by anyone. Great Mara (talk) 18:40, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- If you were a jerk, I would have said yes, but reading around, I don't think you are. And everyone has real-world issues to deal with, I don't think you should be stripped of rights just because you may not have the time to be here. Leea (talk)
- The simple fact is I still have confidence in Clyde and his position here at Nukapedia. He may not be around as offend as he once was, but when he is around I feel he uses his rights perfectly well and such they should not be removed. My support for Clyde stands. --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 20:31, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is, I believe this vote was unnecessary. If Clyde had been as inactive as is being claimed here, I surely believe the BC's would have come to a consensus about removing his rights. As it is, I believe Clyde just hasn't been visible (visible as defined by The Three who called for this vote of no confidence). I'm disappointed, extremley so. The reasons given for the called feel like an attempt at carrying out a personal vendetta. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but that does not feel very professional. On top of that I feel that Clyde has not committed an abuse of power significant enough to warrant a removal of rights. Furthermore, it falls within the BC's power to remove a special rights users rights after the user has satisfied the 9 month period of inactivity. A vote of no confidence should never have been called. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:22, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still holding out hope that this is all one big joke. 23:38, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Legalize marijuana "Semper Invictus" 00:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not going to criticize the idea of this motion or any of the comments in the discussion. Please consider this vote strictly as a user voicing which side he supports. I just do not see a reason to demote Clyde. The reasons in his defense statement sum up everything that I feel about this case. Into the wild blue yonder... 00:50, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I, too, think that marijuana should be legalized DG. Plus, I'm not sure what Clyde's done to have his rights revoked, so whatevs. - Chris 00:53, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I think Kingclyde is a pretty cool guy. Eh bans vandals and doesn't afraid of anything. BOLTMAN FOREVER 00:55, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I have yet to see Clyde do anything that would warrant the removal of his rights or even a demotion. He is an upstanding editor of this wonderful wiki. He has not abused his powers to the best of my knowledge or done anything else to warrant me lacking confidence in him to do his job here. Richie9999 (talk) 17:34, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- ya plans are foiled, end it now Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate 04:35, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- I am very much on Clyde's side of the argument. We have an inactivity policy for a reason, and we have the option for motions of no confidence for another reason. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!" 20:50, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
Excluded Votes
Neutral
- For me, voting no on this is akin to me saying that I have confidence in Clyde as a bureaucrat, and unfortunately, that simply isn't true in my case for the time being. His lack of visibility and several noted issues of unprofessional conduct is not something I wish to see from an active bureaucrat. However, voting yes means that I would have to choose some form of removal of rights - which I don't support either. Sure, Clyde has some faults, but I don't think the sum of the listed incidents and evidence warrant rights removal. What I would propose (and prefer) is that Clyde either relinquish some of his responsibilities, move himself to the inactive list and take some time away from Nukapedia to attend to his real life responsibilities and those on other wikis, or return to active editing and contributing. Because this vote does not allow for such a contingency, I therefore must vote neutral. A Follower Talk 20:37, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I was and am not confident in Clyde's behavior as a rights holder on this wiki, his demeanor and tact in discussions and disputes left much to be desired in the past and his inactivity indicated to me that it had neither improved nor ended. Therefore I can not be brought to vote no towards removing all or some of his rights because I do not have confidence in Clyde as of right now. Due to his defense, however, I am confident that he is capable of enough humility to change his conduct according to the grievances listed against him and, when compared to removing his rights, is a better alternative. Basically, I do not have confidence in Clyde as a Bureaucrat right now but I am confident that he is capable of convincing me otherwise if given the chance. The hiatus Follower proposed sounds like a good way to do that for someone in Clyde's position and I, as of now, cannot provide a better proposal. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 05:01, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
Vote pt.2
For those who voted yes in the poll, please place your signature under the position you'd like to see Kingclyde retain, if any.
Administrator
- See my statement. Some Assembly Required! 18:14, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- MountHail (talk) 01:35, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- --Skire (talk) 13:16, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
Moderator
Chat Moderator
Patroller
No special rights
Special exceptions
The way this vote is set up, there is room for special exceptions. For instance, it has been brought to my attention that should Clyde be voted to have all of their rights removed instead of being demoted, they'd prefer to vote no instead of yes. While most users will typically change their votes to reflect this, I'd like to ask that voters state their intentions under this section before-hand so that the voters and Bureaucrats can take their opinions into consideration early instead of at the last second. Please only use this section for the purpose detailed above. Irrelevant comments or questions will be moved into the general comments area to avoid clutter and confusion.
- I mentioned clearly in my statement that I would only support this motion if Clyde can keep his administrator rights. My beliefs are such for the sake of consistency, as well as the fact that Clyde shows willingness to become more visible on the wiki. Thus, depending on how the vote progresses, I will either support "Admin" or "No removal." --Skire (talk) 18:13, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Please see the discussion forum that was put up for the user-comments made prior to this vote. Some Assembly Required! 17:47, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Uh, Peace? I don't like to badger people for their votes, but that was one of the most sensationalist things I've read in a while. First of all, no one ever said Clyde was a danger to this wiki. You should be the one ashamed of yourself for putting words in our mouths, as we only feel Clyde no longer needs his Bureaucratic rights. Second of all, Clyde did not make the wiki into what it is today. I respect Clyde, and what he has done. But everyone that has ever edited here has made the wiki into what it is today. Never is it just because of one person. Some Assembly Required! 18:10, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't put in your mouth that you would have said Clyde is a danger, it was more of a public question that popped out of my mouth. For as far as I know, a motion of no confidence means we no longer trust someone to have the powers someone has. Only situation I can imagine at the moment in which I would consider no longer trusting someone with powers, would be if I think there's a serious risk of the person abusing them and form a danger for the wikia and/or its community in that way. If a forum would be made about people not having confidence in me, I would consider it to be an insult if I didn't do anything wrong. You did bring up a few cases where he may have exceeded his function, but they aren't even close to being serious enough in my opinion. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:27, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- For me, no confidence isn't about worrying that Clyde will abuse his powers; I'm simply not confident that he needs them. As I see it, the facts point against any need for special-rights. Does he need to be a bureaucrat? Well, he's made just under 500 mainspace edits in a year and has only changed the rights of one person in 2013. Does he need to be an admin? He's only protected three pages and deleted nine in 2013. Patroller? Besides the automatically marked edits, he's only marked about 40 edits patrolled in 2013 alone. And that's just based on numbers alone. 69.l25 (talk) 18:34, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Peace. That is a much more respectful stance, and is an opinion I will take into account. Just remember that the reason I instigated this motion is because I don't, personally, have confidence in him holding his Bureaucratic rights anymore. Nothing more, and nothing less on my end. If you don't personally agree with my reasoning, then I will respect that and it's the reason why everyone has a chance to vote on this. Just please keep the process civil and don't make assumptions, please. Some Assembly Required! 18:42, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- @69 That's a personal opinion I understand. I also think he may have to be here a bit more, but as it stands now, it's a vote of no confidence, which sounds to me a lot more severe than just saying "hey we think you do too few for the wikia atm, is it okay if we take your rights away till you get here more again", this is also why I put the confidence in caps in my vote. I would consider it very insulting if it was put towards me if I were inactive for a while. That they would take my rights away while I'm away, no problem (I don't see the point of doing this, but well, it doesn't do anything bad taking them away), I wouldn't be using them anyway, but opening a forum saying the community has no longer confidence in me, then I would feel totally unapreciated and insulted. Maybe that's just me, or it has a totally different meaning in my language than in English. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:47, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- @Garoux, I was aware it was a bit strong worded when reading it before I posted it, but I felt it had to be said, was planning on making the comment a bit more fluffy, but last vote I had complaints my vote was way too long, so just tried to stick to the essence, even when it sounds like an attack when not putting any nuance into it.- Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:47, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Peace. That is a much more respectful stance, and is an opinion I will take into account. Just remember that the reason I instigated this motion is because I don't, personally, have confidence in him holding his Bureaucratic rights anymore. Nothing more, and nothing less on my end. If you don't personally agree with my reasoning, then I will respect that and it's the reason why everyone has a chance to vote on this. Just please keep the process civil and don't make assumptions, please.
- For me, no confidence isn't about worrying that Clyde will abuse his powers; I'm simply not confident that he needs them. As I see it, the facts point against any need for special-rights. Does he need to be a bureaucrat? Well, he's made just under 500 mainspace edits in a year and has only changed the rights of one person in 2013. Does he need to be an admin? He's only protected three pages and deleted nine in 2013. Patroller? Besides the automatically marked edits, he's only marked about 40 edits patrolled in 2013 alone. And that's just based on numbers alone. 69.l25 (talk) 18:34, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
To specify why inactivity is so harmful at this time, we have 12 active projects going on right now; some specific needs are dialogue files, GECK data, first-person pronoun removal, images, and stub removal. Even besides projects, there's so much editing that needs to be done, and to have someone who edits so infrequently hold the top user-rights spot at this wiki is sending out the wrong message. How can we tolerate inactivity at such a large scale and then preach active editing for everyone else? 69.l25 (talk) 18:28, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- GECK data and dialogue files - not possible for everybody. The stub removal project is pretty much complete, there's only at least 20 pages (that hardly have any available information) left with stub tags. The only images needed are map marker images for FNV and FO3 locations, which again aren't possible for everyone. The only project open is the first-person pronoun removal one. OfficialLolGuy Talk Blog 20:31, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- A bit off-topic, but... the stub removal project is still quite extensive. Most of the game stubs are finished. But there are still around 600-800 stubs that need to be accounted for. Some Assembly Required! 20:33, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- A bit off-topic, but... the stub removal project is still quite extensive. Most of the game stubs are finished. But there are still around 600-800 stubs that need to be accounted for.
- KingClyde isn't stopping anyone from editing. If anything, those that instigated this forum are stopping us from editing by dragging the community along to this spectacular farce. Rather than actually try and promote users to become active, you demonise an easy target and try to make him a scapegoat for an issue that, ironically, this forum is a perfect example of. Yes, rather than edit, let's all go to the forums and talk about why it's KingClyde's fault we're not editing. Seriously guys. Not impressed. 23:44, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the focus should be on editing; this means having someone who doesn't edit hold the highest position is this wiki is hypocrisy. No inactive editors are stopping anyone from editing, but special rights come with a responsibility. If you can't fulfill the responsibility, you can't have special rights. 69.l25 (talk) 00:01, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- KingClyde isn't stopping anyone from editing. If anything, those that instigated this forum are stopping us from editing by dragging the community along to this spectacular farce. Rather than actually try and promote users to become active, you demonise an easy target and try to make him a scapegoat for an issue that, ironically, this forum is a perfect example of. Yes, rather than edit, let's all go to the forums and talk about why it's KingClyde's fault we're not editing. Seriously guys. Not impressed.
Danny, please explain to me how that particular argument does not claim KingClyde is the reason why there's so much inactivity. Without the sarcasm, preferably.
P.S. you guys weren't around during the time of Ausir but I can say that he did very little editing too. Yet somehow the Vault wasn't as dysfunctional as Nukapedia. 
00:21, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I have been at Nukapedia since nearly the beginning. Just because I didn't have an account until 2011 doesn't mean that I wasn't around when Ausir and them were still the big-dogs. I'd advise everyone voting/commenting not to go off on half-cocked theories. Some Assembly Required! 00:54, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I was asking how people like you rally for more editing but are fine with inactive leadership. 69.l25 (talk) 00:24, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, if this were a time where a game had just come up and Clyde was going the rate he was at, of course I would think we'd need a more active bureaucrat. However, we aren't at a time where a game has come up, and the majority of the activity is now in these forums created to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. We should take this time to make rough some edges, add some new features, and have some fun. I don't edit every day, but I'm here everyday, why am I not a target? --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 00:31, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, if this were a time where a game had just come up and Clyde was going the rate he was at, of course I would think we'd need a more active bureaucrat. However, we aren't at a time where a game has come up, and the majority of the activity is now in these forums created to make an issue out of something that really isn't an issue. We should take this time to make rough some edges, add some new features, and have some fun. I don't edit every day, but I'm here everyday, why am I not a target? --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving
- I don't understand the "there isn't a game" argument. If you think he'll do well with rights when/if we get a Fallout 4, why would he need them now? Why can't he take a lower position now and reapply for bureaucrat when we have a new game? After all, he'd have the support. And no, you don't edit every day, but you edit more than KingClyde and hold a lesser position. 69.l25 (talk) 00:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- The leadership isn't inactive. Clyde is not an autocrat, responsibility is shared between four different users. And even then it's not the bureaucrat's job to make people edit. Now if Clyde was the only bureaucrat and he hadn't edited in a year, then I would wholeheartedly agree that we demote him. But that's not the case, and to argue that we lack editors because KingClyde is setting a bad example is a load of crap.
- Yes, it would be nice if there were more people serious about editing. So here's an idea - go find a way to promote active editing which doesn't require antagonising other people. 00:34, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- What exactly has KingClyde done this past year that makes you think he should be a bureaucrat? Sure he helped the wiki out after the split, but that was long ago. Why does he need rights now? The logs show he isn't using them. 69.l25 (talk) 00:40, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- One who dubs this forum, made in good faith, a "joke" and "spectacular farce" can hardly be taken aback by a small use of sarcasm... Anyhow, I digress. Clyde not editing regularly is one concern that one of the initiators brought up. Perhaps a valid point, it is nowhere near the crux of the issue, and shouldn't be distorted as such. Many users don't edit often any more, and it's understandable, to an extent. But everything has degrees - we simply prefer that someone at the forefront of the community engage more in the wiki in general (which includes, but is not limited to, editing). No, we don't all have to be Jspoelstras, but some editing every now and then is not an unfair expectation, in my opinion. Especially with our recent policies, there are many items in a bureaucrat's job description. It isn't, once again, just about editing. --Skire (talk) 00:46, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- What exactly has KingClyde done this past year that makes you think he should be a bureaucrat? Sure he helped the wiki out after the split, but that was long ago. Why does he need rights now? The logs show he isn't using them. 69.l25 (talk) 00:40, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
Also, please stop with the contemptuous comments. I hope showing disagreement while maintaining a modicum of politeness is not out of our reach. --Skire (talk) 18:40, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree. I have to say that I'm very disappointed in the sensational votes coming in. There's having an opinion, and then there's abusing your opinion. Some Assembly Required! 18:45, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- In all fairness, you have made opinions blunt and straightforward in favor of Clyde's demotion - doing the same in favor of the opposite should not be discouraged. A Follower Talk 20:02, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- How is that comparable to comments like this vote makes them want to throw up? We're not discouraging opinions. We're discouraging utter disrespect and sensationalism. Some Assembly Required! 20:06, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I do not see a vote that currently contains what you said above. Nothing I see is sensationalist in my book. Blunt, maybe, but not sensationalist or contemptuous. A Follower Talk 20:12, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Just checked the history: it seems that vote was changed a little while ago. Some Assembly Required! 20:13, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Just checked the history: it seems that vote was changed a little while ago.
- I do not see a vote that currently contains what you said above. Nothing I see is sensationalist in my book. Blunt, maybe, but not sensationalist or contemptuous.
- How is that comparable to comments like this vote makes them want to throw up? We're not discouraging opinions. We're discouraging utter disrespect and sensationalism.
- In all fairness, you have made opinions blunt and straightforward in favor of Clyde's demotion - doing the same in favor of the opposite should not be discouraged.
Special rights are not rights; they are a privilege; they are given to you. Anyone who argues that he has done nothing to warrant rights removal is backward. He's not entitled to them; they are there because the community trusted that he could use them, but he no longer demonstrates that he needs them. It's really that simple. 69.l25 (talk) 17:58, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- But what exactly is the problem with him having them? - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:00, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- He doesn't use them. 69.l25 (talk) 18:04, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, to me, as long as he doesn't misuse his rights, I don't really see a problem. However, your point that others could use it better is correct, but to me, that means that those others should step forward to also get those rights, instead of taking the rights away from them who don't use the rights they got. I don't think there are rules puting a maximum on the ammount of certain users. I've seen wikias with a lot more special right users. I think the point you are trying to make (please correct me if I'm wrong with this) is that as long as there are many people with special rights, people are less likely to give to give extra users special rights with the argument "we already have enough of them". I agree that I have noticed feelings going in that direction (if the point I made before would be your point of view, again please correct me if I'm wrong). But then I think we should rather have to change the way we think, instead of puting motions of no confidence against people who didn't do anything wrong. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:12, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- To an extent, yes that's one way I view it. But my main point is why does KingClyde need special rights? The logs show he doesn't use them, and he's almost never here to mediate or respond to forums. KingClyde was voted bureaucrat two years ago and has changed so much since then. Why does he still need his special rights? 69.l25 (talk) 18:19, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, in my view, it doesn't hurt anyone that he has them, so I'm not really bothered by him having them. He indeed doesn't need them now, but that doesn't mean to me he shouldn't have them. I also don't use my sun cream right now, but I wouldn't be happy if someone came into my house and took it away from me. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:24, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- To an extent, yes that's one way I view it. But my main point is why does KingClyde need special rights? The logs show he doesn't use them, and he's almost never here to mediate or respond to forums. KingClyde was voted bureaucrat two years ago and has changed so much since then. Why does he still need his special rights? 69.l25 (talk) 18:19, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, to me, as long as he doesn't misuse his rights, I don't really see a problem. However, your point that others could use it better is correct, but to me, that means that those others should step forward to also get those rights, instead of taking the rights away from them who don't use the rights they got. I don't think there are rules puting a maximum on the ammount of certain users. I've seen wikias with a lot more special right users. I think the point you are trying to make (please correct me if I'm wrong with this) is that as long as there are many people with special rights, people are less likely to give to give extra users special rights with the argument "we already have enough of them". I agree that I have noticed feelings going in that direction (if the point I made before would be your point of view, again please correct me if I'm wrong). But then I think we should rather have to change the way we think, instead of puting motions of no confidence against people who didn't do anything wrong. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:12, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- He doesn't use them. 69.l25 (talk) 18:04, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
To me there's a difference between "can have them" and "can keep them", since you only would have gotten them if you have prooven yourself and the community trusts you enough. But like with just about everything, all of this is just a matter of opinion I guess. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:30, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
Bad example, as the sunscreen is yours and taking it from you would require breaking into your home and stealing it. A better example would be if you were a babysitter, and you were given the key to the house. The key was never meant to be permanently yours, and was merely given to you so you could watch over their children. If you stop being able to watch after their baby, then there is no reason for you to hold onto the key to their house anymore. Yes, the parents can have as many babysitters as they wish on the side, but that doesn't stop the fact that you have no right holding onto the key to their house if you decide not to show up most of the time anymore. Some Assembly Required! 18:33, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, to go on on your example, as it also fits more or less the point; The situation; It's July, I'm a babysitter and I got the keys of their house to babysit. I'm off for a year to study abroad for a while and I tell them I'll be back after that year to babysit further on for them. The kids like me a lot and tell me they are gonna miss me and look forward to next summer when I get back. The parents are also happy to hear that I'm delighted to babysit for them again as soon as I get back next summer. If I then get back home for Christmas with the family between both semesters, and the mother would come to my home to tell "Well, I talked to my husband, and we no longer trust you having the keys" that would disappoint me in some way. I would understand it, but yet it would leave a scar in the relation. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:48, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
Yes and some people from the December 2011 Nukapedia community trusted KingClyde with rights, but that was over two years ago. At that point did he use rights? Yes. But now he doesn't. 69.l25 (talk) 18:42, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I'd see it as re-applying for the job again. 2 years mostly away from the child is going to result in a largely different environment when you come back to babysit full-time, and the parents in that time will have gotten used to other babysitting options while you were away. With an older child now, I would fully expect you to show me that you can still raise my child properly without your schooling distracting you. I wouldn't consider it really a trust issue, but an issue of whether or not you still have your head in the game. Some Assembly Required! 18:53, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- And I guess this is where our opinions differ. If I would have trusted someone to take care of my children, and that person didn't change, I'd still trust that person, even if he has been studying abroad for a year. btw, also keep in mind CLyde has been in touch with the wikia all the time, just not as active as he was, so the example of studying abroad is out of proportion, unless if you would add something like that the student still skyped with the kids and the parents. No direct contact, but also no loss of connection - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 19:01, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- People change. -shrugs- Priorities shift, and integrity is fleeting. But anyways, it is your opinion, and I'll leave it at that. Some Assembly Required! 19:06, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, I guess we get each others points (at least I get what you mean, can't say for sure if you get how I see it), and I don't feel too much like discussing all of this much further. Better to agree to disagree. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 19:10, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- People change. -shrugs- Priorities shift, and integrity is fleeting. But anyways, it is your opinion, and I'll leave it at that.
- And I guess this is where our opinions differ. If I would have trusted someone to take care of my children, and that person didn't change, I'd still trust that person, even if he has been studying abroad for a year. btw, also keep in mind CLyde has been in touch with the wikia all the time, just not as active as he was, so the example of studying abroad is out of proportion, unless if you would add something like that the student still skyped with the kids and the parents. No direct contact, but also no loss of connection - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 19:01, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I'd see it as re-applying for the job again. 2 years mostly away from the child is going to result in a largely different environment when you come back to babysit full-time, and the parents in that time will have gotten used to other babysitting options while you were away. With an older child now, I would fully expect you to show me that you can still raise my child properly without your schooling distracting you. I wouldn't consider it really a trust issue, but an issue of whether or not you still have your head in the game.
| Edits 2011 | Edits 2013 |
|---|---|
| 2597 | 669 |
2597 was the number voters got when KingClyde was voted bureaucrat. That's dropped by about 400%. He's changed; people thought they were voting in someone who'd make over 2500 edits in a year, but now it's far less than even 1,000. That's not fair to all the people who trusted him. 69.l25 (talk) 19:11, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- You know 69, I understand that you do want my rights completely stripped in a bad way. But you are comparing a time when Fallout New Vegas was still relatively new and was still having fresh DLC's released, the wiki was having new bugs verified and new content added daily. Your obviously slanted comparison is biased and unfair.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:21, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Clyde has hit something here. Those numbers arent comparable due to the activity on the wiki needed at the time of the release of a new game (whereas now e're polishing and adding background stuff). To be comparable and have meaning, we'd need to be comparing it to other admins in that timeframe. The idea of reviewing peoples rights on edit counts seems to have died in the review thread... do we really want to open this door? Agent c (talk) 20:28, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I have to concur with Clyde and Chad. That is a biased comparison that fails to take into account the actualities of the time period's you're comparing. I discourage anyone from taking this into account, as I'm sure the same pattern would be observed in most (if not all) of our current sysops. A Follower Talk 20:29, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't unfair; users right now have managed to hit or surpass KingClyde's 2597 edits without a new game. It's not as if we need a new game to make thousands of edits. Were there more opportunities in 2011? Absolutely. But there is still much that can be done now, and Clyde seems to be forgetting this. 69.l25 (talk) 20:32, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm more interested in Clyde's administrative inactivity, but to be fair, I am a good example as to how comparing edit-counts then to now isn't exactly unbiased. I've made close to 2000 article-edits in 2013 alone, with around 5-7k total edits. I actually exceeded my 2011 & 2012 edits in 2013-2014. Some Assembly Required! 20:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm more interested in Clyde's administrative inactivity, but to be fair, I am a good example as to how comparing edit-counts then to now isn't exactly unbiased. I've made close to 2000 article-edits in 2013 alone, with around 5-7k total edits. I actually exceeded my 2011 & 2012 edits in 2013-2014.
- This isn't unfair; users right now have managed to hit or surpass KingClyde's 2597 edits without a new game. It's not as if we need a new game to make thousands of edits. Were there more opportunities in 2011? Absolutely. But there is still much that can be done now, and Clyde seems to be forgetting this. 69.l25 (talk) 20:32, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I have to concur with Clyde and Chad. That is a biased comparison that fails to take into account the actualities of the time period's you're comparing. I discourage anyone from taking this into account, as I'm sure the same pattern would be observed in most (if not all) of our current sysops.
- Clyde has hit something here. Those numbers arent comparable due to the activity on the wiki needed at the time of the release of a new game (whereas now e're polishing and adding background stuff). To be comparable and have meaning, we'd need to be comparing it to other admins in that timeframe. The idea of reviewing peoples rights on edit counts seems to have died in the review thread... do we really want to open this door? Agent c (talk) 20:28, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I've said it before, so have others, but I'll say it again: Quantity of edits do not measure a contributor's value to the community. As an example, the other day I worked on adding some quotes and sourcing them back to the FOBOS manual. How many edits did I get for that? Maybe 30. How long did it take me? Probably 2 hours straight work. I also wrote an overview page for test cells. Took me like 3 hours to compile everything, and I got 2 edits total for it. Sure, in that time I could have had made over a hundred minor changes, but that work was more significant. I'm not necessarily saying this applies to Clyde, but it clearly shows that quantity of edits is not an accurate measure of contribution. A Follower Talk 20:52, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I can go into detail about Clyde's quality of editing if you really want: you will end up seeing a similar trait. Most of Clyde's 2013 edits were small and changed very little. Maybe I should list the times he used his special-rights; again, you'll find a very trivial list for 2013. 69.l25 (talk) 20:56, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
I found a similar pattern for Agent C and Follower: 69.l25 (talk) 20:46, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
A Follower:
| Edits 2011 | Edits 2013 |
|---|---|
| 517 | 2335 |
Agent C:
| Edits 2011 | Edits 2013 |
|---|---|
| 1240 | 4010 |
- Again 69, this is silly. You are taking things out of context. Did you happen to see when Follower created his account? As for Chad I cannot explain the difference. As for Leon's statement of "I've made close to 2000 article-edits in 2013 alone", you are making this a "pissing contest" which is not making you look good at all. It would be advisable to stop. As for my edit file size. I did alot of navbox additions and edits of the such. Just because I'm not adding full pages does not be I'm not contributing properly.--Kingclyde (talk) 21:05, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I counted every edit you made-- not just mainspace-- and you didn't even hit 700. And your rights logs show even less activity. Follower made his account midyear, but if you double the number to make up for the missed time, it's still a significant change. Heck, he'd have needed to make about 7,000 more edits to achieve your percent decrease from 2011 to 2013. 69.l25 (talk) 21:09, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
Right. Now compare what Follower and I were doing at the time. I became fully active at the end of 2011 when I took over the news. Prior to that I was a commentor and forum poster only - I didn't even know how to do links right I edited that little. Do we start to reconfirm everyone who doesn't edit much now? I can't speak for follower but he didn't have an account until July 2011. I really wish you hadn't have done this. Agent c (talk) 21:00, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- So, you took over the news and became fully active, and Clyde became a bureaucrat, and his editing dropped 400%. You're comparing apples to oranges. 69.l25 (talk) 21:05, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- No, you are comparing 1-2 months of actual editing to 12 months. the increase is not 400% because its not a 12 true month figure. the Apple-Orange comparison here is yours. Agent c (talk) 21:08, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- How am I making this into a pissing contest? :| I have never cared about my edit-count, and if I actually did, wouldn't you think I'd be a bit embarrassed to put that I made 2k article edits when there are new users that have only been here for a few months and have already equaled or exceeded that number? I was merely giving a personal example for 69's statement that I happened to know off of the top of my head. Some Assembly Required! 21:10, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- What increase? Clyde's editing went down by 400% from 2011 to 2013. 69.l25 (talk) 21:12, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- How am I making this into a pissing contest? :| I have never cared about my edit-count, and if I actually did, wouldn't you think I'd be a bit embarrassed to put that I made 2k article edits when there are new users that have only been here for a few months and have already equaled or exceeded that number? I was merely giving a personal example for 69's statement that I happened to know off of the top of my head.
- And mine is only about stable (when if we presume most of those edits are loaded to the end of the year) because I have 2 weekly blogs and comments full of stuff to do. If it weren't for those, it would be on the way down. This whole process is taking on an increasingly nasty tone, and I for one do not like it. Agent c (talk) 21:16, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Nor do I. Edit counts are not bars for activity. Some users here make 2500 edits alone solely on blogs and comments. The logs mentioned earlier are sufficient evidence for Clyde's inactivity/visibility, which is also not the central issue of this forum. A Follower Talk 21:20, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to change the subject, I suggest you look a the times KingClyde's used his special-rights. I find that lack of activity far more concerning. 69.l25 (talk) 21:18, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- That's pretty much my primary concern. The low edit-count is just a secondary concern. Some Assembly Required! 21:22, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- That's pretty much my primary concern. The low edit-count is just a secondary concern.
- If you want to change the subject, I suggest you look a the times KingClyde's used his special-rights. I find that lack of activity far more concerning. 69.l25 (talk) 21:18, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Nor do I. Edit counts are not bars for activity. Some users here make 2500 edits alone solely on blogs and comments. The logs mentioned earlier are sufficient evidence for Clyde's inactivity/visibility, which is also not the central issue of this forum.
- No, you are comparing 1-2 months of actual editing to 12 months. the increase is not 400% because its not a 12 true month figure. the Apple-Orange comparison here is yours. Agent c (talk) 21:08, January 21, 2014 (UTC)